The pundits that inhabit the blogosphere are daily announcing the death of NATO — or at least that it is on its deathbed. Like so much uninformed speculation in the media, those pronouncements and a Loonie will buy you a small coffee at your local McDonald’s drive through.

Clearly, I am not in agreement with those who have begun the planning the funeral services of an alliance that has guaranteed the general peace for nearly a century. Certainly, there is a general malaise among senior leaders, both military and political, in NATO, but that doesn’t mean it is dying. However, it is changing and for my money, that is good. When the alliance was founded, it was led by one of the world’s two superpowers and until recently, acting as the ‘big dog’ on the block, it got its way in every sphere. Often, that meant that we smaller powers either went along or faced some kind of consequence. Over the decades, resentment began to build in some areas and as I have mentioned before on this site, some of the larger middle powers began to wonder if they were still happy inside the alliance.

The US president, his vice president, and his secretary of state all made noises recently that maybe American should abandon NATO. Not so fast! There are enormous financial, strategic, and political ramifications that the American brain trust at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have not considered. Almost none of the attacks that we have seen this past month could have been launched without offshore bases. One of the key reasons that America can throw its weight around is because it belongs to NATO. Is the US Navy, for instance, willing to give up control of the Mediterranean?

It is a huge burden that the US carries within the alliance, but that burden bring countless benefits. American politicians who have a brain (and some still sit in Congress) know that it would be the end of American world hegemony if they vote to leave. They also know that the vacuum created by an American departure would necessarily be filled by someone else, and that re-adjustment in the equilibrium of power would not necessarily favour America.

But what does the current wounding of the alliance by the ‘big dog’ mean to the other partners? From my perspective, it can be seen as a problem or as an opportunity. As I have said before, France is seeing this as an opportunity. They are willing to step into the leadership vacuum, whether the US leaves or stays and that is a good thing. The alliance was unbalanced for far too long and with Germany, et al, rearming there is an opportunity to re-evaluate the alliances priorities, policies and structure to make it more sensitive to the needs and wants of all members — something that is already in progress.

The threats and endless insults from the ignorant American president have forced a somnambulant membership to rise from its intellectual slumber. Arguably, this could have been accomplished with more grace and tact, but it is now well underway, both in Europe and here at home and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is being forced to re-evaluate, restructure, and re-equip at a pace not experienced since the Korean War.

Many friends have asked me for my opinions on what the CAF needs to do and most of my readers have seen my comments on drones, technology, and armoured warfare. I see the ongoing disputes in a positive light. Certainly the CDS and her subordinate staffs and commanders have enormous challenges facing them in nearly all domains. I know few of them personally but believe that they will do their best to ensure that whatever new aims, structures, and equipment is incorporated into their commands will leave room for improvement, growth and flexibility.

As with the two major alliances that guide our national defence (NORAD and NATO), there can be no one-time fix to correct decades of neglect. The challenges are daunting and there will surely be missteps along the path, but as we always said in the Armoured Corps: A good plan now is better than a great plan too late.